Chief Justice John Roberts is a man who has made very few public missteps in his life -- but he appears to have made one when swearing in Barack Obama. Roberts slightly flubbed the oath, which then tripped up Obama.

The oath is contained in the Constitution: "I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."But when Roberts swore in Obama, he flipped some of the words, saying: "I will execute the office of president to the United States faithfully."Here's the transcript:

ROBERTS: Are you prepared to take the oath, Senator?OBAMA: I am.ROBERTS: I, Barack Hussein Obama...OBAMA: I, Barack...ROBERTS: ... do solemnly swear...OBAMA: I, Barack Hussein Obama, do solemnly swear...ROBERTS: ... that I will execute the office of president to the United States faithfully...OBAMA: ... that I will execute...ROBERTS: ... faithfully the office of president of the United States...OBAMA: ... the office of president of the United States faithfully...ROBERTS: ... and will to the best of my ability...OBAMA: ... and will to the best of my ability...ROBERTS: ... preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.OBAMA: ... preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.ROBERTS: So help you God?OBAMA: So help me God.ROBERTS: Congratulations, Mr. President.

AND FROM CNN:

UpdateOn CNN, Wolf Blitzer said, "John Roberts had one job to do today and he sort of screwed up." Jeffrey Toobin replied, "I almost fell out of my chair."

33 comments:

Josh
said...

This is unbelievable:

Barack Obama had not yet taken office, and Rush Limbaugh is already rooting for his failure. On his radio show last Friday, Limbaugh said, “I disagree fervently with the people on our [Republican] side of the aisle who have caved and who say, ‘Well, I hope he succeeds.’”

Limbaugh told his listeners that he was asked by “a major American print publication” to offer a 400-word statement explaining his “hope for the Obama presidency.” He responded:

So I’m thinking of replying to the guy, “Okay, I’ll send you a response, but I don’t need 400 words, I need four: I hope he fails.” (interruption) What are you laughing at? See, here’s the point. Everybody thinks it’s outrageous to say. Look, even my staff, “Oh, you can’t do that.” Why not? Why is it any different, what’s new, what is unfair about my saying I hope liberalism fails? Liberalism is our problem. Liberalism is what’s gotten us dangerously close to the precipice here. Why do I want more of it? I don’t care what the Drive-By story is. I would be honored if the Drive-By Media headlined me all day long: “Limbaugh: I Hope Obama Fails.” Somebody’s gotta say it.

It hasn’t taken long for Limbaugh to reveal his core hypocrisy. In July 2006, with conservatives in power, Limbaugh offered one of his common screeds against the left. “I’m getting so sick and tired of people rooting for the defeat of the good guys,” he complained.

During the Clinton presidency in the 90s, Limbaugh would begin his show with a gimmick, purporting to count the days America had been “held hostage.” In May 2007, Limbaugh recalled:

"Back when Clinton was inaugurated in 1993 and we began our America Held Hostage countdown, the number of days left until Clinton was gone so we’d all be released from bondage, the joke, do you remember how mad the liberals got at that? Do you remember how mad the Drive-Bys got at that? Then they started running stories how I, Rush Limbaugh, was destroying the respect for the office of the presidency that the American people had."

Rush Limbaugh is a stain on the world's cesspools.

And yet people still listen to his rot.

He's an unhappy gasbag, and only losers listen to his divisive hatred.

Josh said, "He's an unhappy gasbag, and only losers listen to his divisive hatred."

That is why I DON'T listen to him. His listeners form a very small core of rabid nuts - best to ignore him so as not to give him more encouragement to keep gassing away. Not that he needs much.But, the new president said it best in quoting a biblical reference that it is time to put away childish things - we have been called to serve our country and over the next four years we will find plenty of worthwhile and positive projects to engage in.Rush will simply remain sitting on what little brains he has, spewing to a near empty auditorium.

Shaw: I thought it was kind of a double flub. Obama chimed in, got Robers off, then he flubbed his line, Obama stopped on the flubbed line, then they finally got moving. The Roberts asked the "so help you God" part. Kind a got a kick out of the whole thing.

Maybe they should have put it on the teleprompter.

Josh (especially), Rocky, Arthur: You all consider you may just be a bunch of bitter bastards? Bush is out, so you have to find somebody else to bitch about.

As one of Rush's listeners, I can guarantee he has not been hypocritical on this one. But that won't stop you from whining and screaming, so I'm not going to spend the time explaining what was misinterpreted on the Media Matters site.

Patrick, I'm not bitter, just sick of all the hate filled rantings of idiots like Rush and Howard and Imus and all the other equally offensive assholes that manage to pollute the airwaves.

All that lofty right wing, "We respect the office, blah, blah, blah" doesn't count for much when you defend the poisonous diatribes of Limbaugh.Rush like all the rest of them is just a media whore looking to get ratings - if you believe he actually has something worthwhile to say; knock YOURSELF out...

Josh (especially), Rocky, Arthur: You all consider you may just be a bunch of bitter bastards? Bush is out, so you have to find somebody else to bitch about.

And that will likely be the newly elected President and his fellow Democrats when they fail to heed my advice 8>. Though if a special prosecutor and a couple of truth commissions are empaneled to illuminate the actions of administration officials around GITMO, domestic spying and lying in the run up to the invasion of Iraq I may not bitch too much.

While I certainly respect your superior knowledge of all things 'bitter' (after all you are the one running something called Asshat of the Week the current episode featuring a newly inaugurated President Obama) I think you've got this just a bit bassackwards. Limbaugh's is a tired ACT. Pointing out that rather obvious fact doesn't demonstrate bitterness. In fact it shouldn't even be necessary. He and his ilk have done much to lower the level of political discourse in this nation through their adolescent mewling and for that we all are paying an enormous price.

A point to consider. Much as Rush would like to be seen as a principled teller of painful truths such couldn't be further from the truth. People in his particular line of work (show business), be they Dennis Miller or Anne Coulter or Howard Stern DO NOT earn their tens of millions of dollars by uttering painful truths. Rather they earn enormous sums by identifying their audience and pandering to the fears, prejudices and insecurities of their target demographic.

So whatever Limbaugh has to say doesn't really spoil my parade any. The man is a joke. Which leads me to another interesting point.

GWB. Bad as his administration was that isn't the worst of it. He himself is not the most frightening aspect of this entire eight year fiasco. For me as nothing much was expected from this guy I can't say I'm in any way surprised or even disappointed in his 'performance'. So my harshest feelings aren't directed toward George. George was George. Rather it is a lazy, complacent self-satisfied electorate so willing to be lied to which winds me up. Complex times do not call for simple slogans by simple men (or women).

George, Howard, Rush and Anne are all pretty much the same. They give their audience what they want. And as Americans those demands often far too little.

I think there is one very effective way to handle radio personalities you don't like: Ignore them, turn the dial.

Done. Now Howard, Rush, Anne, Dennis, and all the rest won't have any power over you.

(By the way, who runs Asshat of the Week? And if you are interested, feel free to check my posts in my blog concerning Obama, including the one this today. So much for any claim that I see this in "black and white").

The Air American folks and some other independent ones I've heard come and go. They aren't as popular, so that is one way they differ from Rush. But they use humor, insult, sarcasm, and selective logic to make their one-sided political points. Just like Rush.

(Not all of them. I rememember Mario Cuomo's radio program. He took the high road, unlike Hightower, Franken, etc.).

Of course I read your response. Al Franken hasn't been on Air America in nearly two years. Jim Hightower has a pokey little radio show on 60 or so stations (one in Michigan).

And just what do either of these guys have in common with Rush Limbaugh beyond being males of the species who make occasional radio appearances? Do either make racist remarks? Are they profound sexists?

Spike Lee is not a talk show host. I never said he was. But he did create the "Magic Negro" meme, which Rush Limbaugh later used as a song. And that song is the example of Rush Limbuagh's bigotry towrrd blacks.

Randi Rhodes? Very close.The fact that she got fired dooes not contradict the fact that she is/was a left-wing talk radio host. She's just one of the Rush-alikes on the left.

I do notice that it looks like you are defending Rhodes: "inappropriate though it may have been". So you have a doubt that calling Hillary a whore is inappropriate? This is all the more bizarre in that her target is a left-winger. At least we know that Rhodes' sexist statement would have been perfectly acceptible to you if her target had been a right-wing woman.

There is no left-wing equivalent to Rush Limbaugh as you have made pitifully clear.

And that you 'try to listen to those on the left' (like him) is fanciful.

Now when Rush throws his hat in the ring and is ready for the give and take of a political campaign as Al Franken has done perhaps I'll reconsider. But as Rush gives no indication of voicing his hateful spew beyond the comfortable walls of his studio or speechifying at tens of thousands of dollars a pop before adoring audiences of well-heeled, tiny minded devotees it isn't going to happen.

And as odious as Randi Rhoades remark was I'm sue Hilary can take care of herself. Now when Rhoades goes off on migrant workers, blacks and the disabled let me know.

'You chose instead to argue that they were not Rush-like because their careers have been shorter.'

You so often become willfully obtuse.

No. No. No. I argue that there is no one on the left who has built a career out of picking on the weak and the voiceless as Rush has done as a right-wing entertainer/pundit/commentator.

Or, as Molly Ivins put it:

I object because he consistently targets dead people, little girls, and the homeless--none of whom are in a particularly good position to answer back. Satire is a weapon, and it can be quite cruel. It has historically been the weapon of powerless people aimed at the powerful. When you use satire against powerless people, as Limbaugh does, it is not only cruel, it's profoundly vulgar. It is like kicking a cripple.

Arthurstone, I was being clear and accurate. I hope you aren't willfully ignoring what you don't like to see again. Like you did with the names (and links) to left-wingers who favored assassinating Bush (and the excuse that it was OK to support assassinating Bush as long as it was a "joke").

Molly Ivins? She was very Rush-like, engaging in selective logic, asserting "insult as superior argument" (the main thing to get from her about her opinion of Texas Gov. Perry is that she really really hates his hair) and an overall immature attitude. But, I know, she was not a radio personality. She was in print.

Both Ivins and Limbaugh had successful careers doing essentially the same thing. Except the blind supporters on either side will say that one is "good" and the other "bad" based on the party they support.

And you will find no Rush supporter who supports Rush because he picks on "the weak and the voiceless". It is the rest of the material, most of it, in which he guns for the easy targets of the powerful and mighty, that has made him rich and famous. Just like Ivins, who was successful for the same reason.

The minds that create the oh-so-witty "Slick Willy" and "Governor Goodhair" are very similar indeed.

And you will find no Rush supporter who supports Rush because he picks on "the weak and the voiceless".

Ha. Ha. Ha.

While I bow before your vastly superior knowledge of 'selective logic' (or at least the execution of same) this is yet another occasion where your enthusiasm for false equivalence gets the better of you.

It's such an integral part of the act you can't separate it out. It's what he DOES. You don't earn a net worth just south of $1B attacking the rich and powerful in this country. You get them to advertise on your programs. You can, however, earn a huge pot by attacking the weak, the poor and minorities.

I read Molly Ivins sir. And she was no Rush Limbaugh.

Of course she could be wicked. She was a tough take no prisoners satirist. She didn't kick the crutch out from under the cripple. Even though it pays so much better.

This is great as well:

'Like you did with the names (and links) to left-wingers who favored assassinating Bush (and the excuse that it was OK to support assassinating Bush as long as it was a "joke").'

Your original, unambiguous remark was '...sympathetic to the assassination of GWB on liberal blogs' has in its current incarnation morphed into the above. And we've yet to see such a blog. A newspaper reporting some protester somewhere and an OpEd by a Brit (who immediately apologized) is what we got.